No! The whole point is that most researchers don't care about those things. You're saying "oh everybody should change because a few people want to be "data mine

No! The whole point is that most researchers don't care about those things. You're saying "oh everybody should change because a few people want to be "data miners" or "change the publishing business'. But apparently, as evidenced by the closed system still existing, the majority doesn't see enough benefits in that for themselves to be willing to change the system. The academic community already has access to papers, and they don't care about the other things you're talking about. I'm not talking about how things should be or any such trite; I'm just saying how it is and why I don't see any reasons it will change. Whereas the article is implying all sorts of oppression by publishers etc. Please, we're all grown-ups here, there is a much simpler explanation for why "open science" isn't catching on: it's the lack of incentives for researchers.